How did we go 24 pages w/o a gun control debate?

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

Unless you register it as a farm vehicle. then your exempt from EPA guidelines. Now how to haul hay with my tank with out ruining my field is the question.

It probably has less ground pressure than a tractor, you should be find.

if farming with an M1 Abrams is the only way to avoid EPA regulations.

Though technically EPA emissions standards are only for when you drive on public roads. and if your doing that your missing the entire point of owning a tank.

Settling disputes with your neighbours?

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

NVM.

I started a new topic.

Very very good idea. I detect a forum veteran ...

[Greed and Death]

if farming with an M1 Abrams is the only way to avoid EPA regulations.

Though technically EPA emissions standards are only for when you drive on public roads. and if your doing that your missing the entire point of owning a tank.

Settling disputes with your neighbours?

I was thinking skip the roads drive through houses.

[The South Islands]

if farming with an M1 Abrams is the only way to avoid EPA regulations.

Though technically EPA emissions standards are only for when you drive on public roads. and if your doing that your missing the entire point of owning a tank.

Settling disputes with your neighbours?

You do know that private tank ownership in the US isn't a horribly rare thing, right?

[Hanibar]

i personally think we should be allowed to have guns unless if you commit a crime then i believe they can take your guns... and they shouldn't be allowed to buy guns anymore.

[NERVUN]

as for the gun control debate... GUN CONTROL LAWS DON'T WORK. PERIOD.
It's the law abiding citizens these laws hurt, not the criminals.

Damn straight! It's why Japan, with its draconian gun control laws is such a haven for crime and it's gun shooting deaths are... er... wait... The whole nation has less gun deaths than New York City.

My bad.

To be fair, you are comparing apples and mangoes here. Japan is significantly different in History, Culture, and in general Socio-Economic conditions compared to the United States. Furthermore, compare firearms ownership in Sweden and Finland, where there are many firearms in civilian hands (a good portion unregistered), but orders of magnitude less gun crime (or crime in general).

Addressing crime by frivolous bans on firearms is nothing but a feeble attempt at addressing a symptom of a deeply rooted problem in American cities.

Very true, but it is also why I get annoyed with the gun nut crowd who scream that GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK! as well as the anti-gun nuts who scream "YES IT DOES!" and then both sides start cherry picking countries to back themselves up.

[NERVUN]

American criminals realize these aren't necessary given the abundance of people like you working to keep firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Prove it.

[NERVUN]

You do know that private tank ownership in the US isn't a horribly rare thing, right?

I believe they are talking about a fully functional tank, which last I checked is indeed rare.

[The South Islands]

You do know that private tank ownership in the US isn't a horribly rare thing, right?

I believe they are talking about a fully functional tank, which last I checked is indeed rare.

True, these can't shoot. But it can mess up your day if your cat happens to not be paying attention...

[NERVUN]

You do know that private tank ownership in the US isn't a horribly rare thing, right?

I believe they are talking about a fully functional tank, which last I checked is indeed rare.

True, these can't shoot. But it can mess up your day if your cat happens to not be paying attention...

I believe that's true with just about ANYTHING and the lack of attention of a cat.

[Parthenon]

American criminals realize these aren't necessary given the abundance of people like you working to keep firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Prove it.

"About 25% of the adults in the United States personally own a gun, the vast majority of them men."
Cook, Philip J.; Ludwig, Jens (2003). Evaluating gun policy: effects on crime and violence. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. pp. s. 3,4. ISBN 0-8157-5311-X.

When you are dealing with a population where 3/4 of your potential targets are unarmed and the remaining 1/4th may not be carrying at the time of encounter you don't exactly need to have an RPG...

[NERVUN]

American criminals realize these aren't necessary given the abundance of people like you working to keep firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Prove it.

"About 25% of the adults in the United States personally own a gun, the vast majority of them men."
Cook, Philip J.; Ludwig, Jens (2003). Evaluating gun policy: effects on crime and violence. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. pp. s. 3,4. ISBN 0-8157-5311-X.

When you are dealing with a population where 3/4 of your potential targets are unarmed and the remaining 1/4th may not be carrying at the time of encounter you don't exactly need to have an RPG...

Nice, but you didn't bother to answer the question through. Prove that criminals know that they don't need heavy arms due to the efforts of gun control advocates to restrict guns.

[Parthenon]

Prove it.

"About 25% of the adults in the United States personally own a gun, the vast majority of them men."
Cook, Philip J.; Ludwig, Jens (2003). Evaluating gun policy: effects on crime and violence. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. pp. s. 3,4. ISBN 0-8157-5311-X.

When you are dealing with a population where 3/4 of your potential targets are unarmed and the remaining 1/4th may not be carrying at the time of encounter you don't exactly need to have an RPG...

Nice, but you didn't bother to answer the question through. Prove that criminals know that they don't need heavy arms due to the efforts of gun control advocates to restrict guns.

We all have the capability of thinking like a criminal as all criminals are human. Its the Actus reus (In most cases) that makes a person a criminal, not the Mens rea.

[NERVUN]

We all have the capability of thinking like a criminal as all criminals are human. Its the Actus reus (In most cases) that makes a person a criminal, not the Mens rea.

Sorry, but "It stands to reason" claims hold no water here. If you're going to make a claim like that, you're going to have to back it up.

[The Cat-Tribe]

We all have the capability of thinking like a criminal as all criminals are human. Its the Actus reus (In most cases) that makes a person a criminal, not the Mens rea.

Um. No. Both actus rea AND mens rea are required for almost all crimes.

[Parthenon]

We all have the capability of thinking like a criminal as all criminals are human. Its the Actus reus (In most cases) that makes a person a criminal, not the Mens rea.

Um. No. Both actus rea AND mens rea are required for almost all crimes.

In the US legal system that is true for conviction, however from a technical side, without actus reus, there is no crime committed.Taking this into account, a person is not a criminal for merely thinking like one but actually performing the deviant act. The ultimate purpose of Mens rea is for reaching "justice" in sentencing and "justice" is a fairly heated topic in legal theory.

Also, I assume you understand Strict-Liability offenses? (I.e. Statutory rape)

[Allanea]

We went 24 pages w/o a gun control debate because most of the permanent members have already made up their minds. Some are against it, some are for it. Which is not a bad thing. It's perfectly okay to have made up your mind on an issue.

[Brogavia]

if farming with an M1 Abrams is the only way to avoid EPA regulations.

Though technically EPA emissions standards are only for when you drive on public roads. and if your doing that your missing the entire point of owning a tank.

Settling disputes with your neighbours?

I was thinking skip the roads drive through houses.

Basements tend to get in the way of that...

[The Cat-Tribe]

We all have the capability of thinking like a criminal as all criminals are human. Its the Actus reus (In most cases) that makes a person a criminal, not the Mens rea.

Um. No. Both actus rea AND mens rea are required for almost all crimes.

In the US legal system that is true for conviction, however from a technical side, without actus reus, there is no crime committed.Taking this into account, a person is not a criminal for merely thinking like one but actually performing the deviant act. The ultimate purpose of Mens rea is for reaching "justice" in sentencing and "justice" is a fairly heated topic in legal theory.

Also, I assume you understand Strict-Liability offenses? (I.e. Statutory rape)

Um. I don't want to harp endlessly on a side-point, but don't lecture me on the law when you don't know what you are talking about.

You said mens rea was not what makes a crime a crime "in most cases."

I said that both actus rea and mens rea are required for "almost all" crimes.

My statement is true. Yours is not.

Responding that there is no crime unless there is actus rea is not disagreeing with me. Both are almost always required.

Similarly, pointing to the relatively insignificant group of crimes that are strict-liability doesn't refute the fact that almost all crimes require BOTH mens rea AND actus rea. (Also, most crimes that are commonly pointed to as "strict liability" still require some type of mens rea -- just not criminal intent on some key point. For example, statutory rape doesn't require knowledge that the victim is underage, but does require intent to have sexual relations.)

[The Cat-Tribe]

Back on the main topic, those that are contending that the right to bear arms is an unlimited right to any weapons are being ridiculously (alhtough dangerously) absurd.

Neither the Second Amendment nor any natural right to bear arms is absolute. Just like with free speech or any other right, there are some limitations on the right.

In the ground-breaking case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008), SCOTUS made clear for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm. BUT the Court limited the scope of its decision to the possession and legal use of handguns. FURTHER, the Court was very clear that such a right was far from absolute or applied to all weapons :

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." See 4 Blackstone 148-149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271-272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383-384 (1824); O'Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

(emphasis added)

[Nordfire]

I think shotguns and hunting rifles should be available to farmers etc who actually put good use to weapons. Why would anyone else need a gun? I'm quite happy with the way things are over here.

[Parthenon]

Um. No. Both actus rea AND mens rea are required for almost all crimes.

In the US legal system that is true for conviction, however from a technical side, without actus reus, there is no crime committed.Taking this into account, a person is not a criminal for merely thinking like one but actually performing the deviant act. The ultimate purpose of Mens rea is for reaching "justice" in sentencing and "justice" is a fairly heated topic in legal theory.

Also, I assume you understand Strict-Liability offenses? (I.e. Statutory rape)

Um. I don't want to harp endlessly on a side-point, but don't lecture me on the law when you don't know what you are talking about.

You said mens rea was not what makes a crime a crime "in most cases."

I said that both actus rea and mens rea are required for "almost all" crimes.

My statement is true. Yours is not.

Responding that there is no crime unless there is actus rea is not disagreeing with me. Both are almost always required.

Similarly, pointing to the relatively insignificant group of crimes that are strict-liability doesn't refute the fact that almost all crimes require BOTH mens rea AND actus rea. (Also, most crimes that are commonly pointed to as "strict liability" still require some type of mens rea -- just not criminal intent on some key point. For example, statutory rape doesn't require knowledge that the victim is underage, but does require intent to have sexual relations.)

As I have indicated time and time again in my posting, I am currently enrolled as a Juris Doctorate student at a tier one school in the american southeast. I know damn well what US law entails for conviction, however, that is not the point of my posting which you seem to be casually overlooking to make subsequent, unrelated, remarks.

It's the actus reus that is the the actual deviant behavior. There is no disputing this fact, hell, its the definition of it.
Mens rea merely refers to the mental state of the person committing the act (insanity, justifiable, etc...) It is required for conviction in the US legal system for certain offenses and is used for determining sentencing, however, discussion of conviction is not the intent of my original posting (a point that is plainly understandable to anyone that isn't just trolling for an argument). The point being conveyed was that we are all capable of deviant thinking, however, we are all not criminals as we have not performed any deviant acts.

[Secruss]

"Neither the Second Amendment nor any natural right to bear arms is absolute. Just like with free speech or any other right, there are some limitations on the right."



Yeah. The Supreme Court can disarm the populace just as well as the Redcoats or Pol Pot.




http://www.itwillpass.com/guns_gun_registration.shtml


"I think shotguns and hunting rifles should be available to farmers etc who actually put good use to weapons. Why would anyone else need a gun? I'm quite happy with the way things are over here."

Which country are you from?

[The Cat-Tribe]

As I have indicated time and time again in my posting, I am currently enrolled as a Juris Doctorate student at a tier one school in the american southeast. I know damn well what US law entails for conviction, however, that is not the point of my posting which you seem to be casually overlooking to make subsequent, unrelated, remarks.

It's the actus reus that is the the actual deviant behavior. There is no disputing this fact, hell, its the definition of it.
Mens rea merely refers to the mental state of the person committing the act (insanity, justifiable, etc...) It is required for conviction in the US legal system for certain offenses and is used for determining sentencing, however, discussion of conviction is not the intent of my original posting (a point that is plainly understandable to anyone that isn't just trolling for an argument). The point being conveyed was that we are all capable of deviant thinking, however, we are all not criminals as we have not performed any deviant acts.

I won't continue to belabor a point that I recognize is a side-issue -- even if you still have the wrong end of the stick.

As for your being a law student, you could claim to be Chief Justice Roberts and you would still be wrong. Regardless, if you want to compare bona fides, I graduated from law school and was admitted to the bar about 11 years ago. Having actually worked as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney, I'm not going to bow down to your alleged expertise.

[The Cat-Tribe]

*snip ridiculousness*

Thank you for demonstrating a complete failure to understand the content of my post.

I am an American citizen that supports the right to bear arms with reasonable restrictions.

You may fantasize all you want about owning a tank. You don't have a right to own one, however.